Nils S

BST Users
  • Content count

    512
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Nils S

  • Rank
    Elite Member
  1. If I remember correctly, vertical sides equal no reserve buoyancy. That's not a good thing in these so called duck "boats," jon "boats" or any other craft that is exposed to much more than ripples. Topsides flare out for a reason - the more you heel, the more stable you become (or something like that).
  2. I had sciatica in left leg four or five years ago. Six or eight months of really major pain. I tried three or four docs - GP, neurologist, neurosurgeon and pain doc. Only thing that sort of helped was heavy duty pain meds (mood enhancers/head f'ers). Finally got a recommendation to a pain doc at Daytona Beach hospital. He put me to sleep, gave me an epidural-nerve block, I woke up and pain was gone. It's still gone though I got another shot three years ago for continuing/increasing numbness of three toes (big 'un to middle) of left foot and the foot was dragging slightly. Reduced but didn't "cure" numbness, PT fixed the dragging unless I'm really tired but it's not even a minor inconvenience usually. What worked for me was persistence in doctor shopping/hopping, so keep looking. I had even considered acupuncture until I found the last guy. And he said if it starts up again he'll fix it again. Interesting side note - he had a chart that connected the various spinal nerves to where they caused problems and what kind of problems. It was right on for me, and i had never seen one of them before - and that was through a whole bunch of office visits/exams. Fortunately we have really good health coverage. Good luck!
  3. Two weeks ago I hooked up a Netgear Nighthawk X4 AC2200 Range Extender ($115 from Amazon). Using AT&T Download Speed Test I get ca 60 Mbps from a hard wired connection, ca 9-10Mbps to a laptop sitting next to to the modem. The range extender is about 30 feet and 4 or 5 walls from the modem and sitting about 40 feet and no walls from the extender I get about 15 Mbps. I don't know how "real" those numbers actually are but there is a definite noticeable improvement. But it took a bunch of moving the extender around and messing with it - maybe 4 or 5 hours - to get there. Setting the extender up was easy. From all I've read, whether an extender works in any particular situation or not depends on a whole bunch of factors, so I'd suggest that if you buy one make sure it that it's easily returnable. If what you get won't get you much more performance get a different model and try again. I did read some stuff that suggested that having the same brand of modem and extender was a good thing but that doesn't seem to be a guarantee (though I do have a Neatgear modem as well). Now I've gotta work on the gap between my hard wired speed and what's coming out of the modem.
  4. HH - I got a tremendous deal on an 8 pound (I think that's about what it weighed) red snapper at the Terminal Market in Philadelphia 'cause it smelled really fishy, but it looked great. I told the woman behind the counter that it smelled pretty bad but I thought it would be ok for stock and offered her ten bucks - I think, this was at last 12 years ago - for it. Took it home, rinsed it off (the slime "goes bad" pretty quickly) and it tasted just like red snapper. I used to work seafood trade shows. We always had a display of fish on ice and it was mandatory to rinse them off every day when the show shut down, That way we could get four or five days out of the fish.
  5. Learn how to recognize quality whole fish - clear, not sunken eyes, bright red gills, resilient flesh - and stick with them at a fish market. Have the dealer fillet it, steak it or whatever or do it yourself when you get it home, and it'll be good. As far as smell, if a fish looks good (as above), but doesn't smell right, if you rinse it off it'll probably be fine - and you might be able to negotiate a discount.
  6. Histamine poisoning - see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2689658
  7. Steve - Having gone through six months of (what I felt was) really bad sciatica, I can really emphasize. I went through a whole bunch of treatments, pain meds, etc. and was finally considering acupuncture but finally went to see a pain guy at Halifax Hospital in Daytona Beach. He did a nerve block (with general anesthesia, I guess it's pretty painful), I was in for three or four hours then went home. By the next day the pain was totally gone. A year and a half later the foot on the same leg started dragging pretty badly - you remember Chester Good on Gunsmoke? I was almost there. It was the same squished disk impinging on the same nerve. I went back, got another nerve block and with some PT the foot is 95% back to normal. It drags a slight bit when I walk farther than a couple of miles, but that works for me for now, and when I get back to regular exercising I hope it will improve that last little bit. Everything considered, I think that the five-way cardiac bypass deal I went through almost twenty years ago wasn't as misery making as the sciatica. One bit of advice I got from virtually everybody, including two neurosurgeons and a orthopedic surgeon, was to only consider surgery as the very last resort. That's advice I took to heart. While the chances of an oops are pretty remote, it only takes one to spoil your whole day - or life. Good luck however you chose to go. I was seriously considering acupuncture but I got the referral to the pain guy and chose that path instead - I've always had the idea that I'd be just a wee bit too skeptical to believe that acupuncture (or chiropractic) would work on me. But they both work on a whole bunch of people. I've always suspected that the more you believe, the more effective they should be. I hope that whatever route you chose works for you and works quickly.
  8. Charlie - It's also a matter of realistic expectations, and today the expectation is that every species being managed will be at the MSY level. Nice as that sounds in many instances it isn't going to happen because of carrying capacity, though that's a concept that doesn't make it into fisheries management discussions too often. When you have a bunch of competing species - those in overlapping niches - you're not going to have them all at maximum levels, though that's what the managers are supposed to be managing for. And then inject a bunch of highly effective and protected for one reason or another predators into the mix and it makes that goal even more improbable. If you look at any of the spiny dogfish stuff I've written since I convened a workshop on the subject (hard to believe that it was almost ten years ago. The program stuff is still available at http://www.fishnet-usa.com/dogforum1.htm). I doubt that there are very many people who doubt that less spiny dogfish would benefit a whole bunch of fisheries, and we'd still have plenty of spiny dogfish to get aggravated about. And what are the chances that bluefish, spiny dogs, summer flounder, stripers, weakfish, croakers and a bunch of pelagics are going to coexist in the New York bight. Just like always they're all going to be eating each other or eating each other's food.
  9. Unfortunately the regulators are forced to want - thanks to the Sustainable Fisheries Act, the most recent Magnuson Act amendment - an end to overfishing. What that means is the biomass of every stock under federal management being at or approaching the level that will produce the maximum sustainable yield. That is a biological impossibility and has led to such idiocies as having way more spiny dogfish out there than anyone (save a handful of ENGOs) wants or needs and multi-million dollar fisheries running the risk of being shut down and therefore seriously limiting fishing because of "unacceptable" catch levels of far less valuable species (and species can be maintained at levels below those needed to produce MSY with no threat or risk). I just wrote a piece on this that's at http://www.fishnet-usa.com/Choking_On_Good_Intentions.pdf.
  10. ps on Stock Assessment Workshops - Below is a column I wrote for National Fisherman ten years ago. The scallop fishery data I was referring to was from a period bridging a "reversal" from not many sea scallops to when the sea scallop stock came back in spades (and it is still back). When the stock was really low the scallop boats would employ their dredges to catch monkfish to make some money on a trip. When the scallops came back all the scallop boats went back to exclusively fishing scallops, and keeping only the monkfish bycatch. Obviously this caused a huge decline in monkfish landings in the sea scallop fishery. The assessment panel members were looking at this as an indicator that all was not well in the monkfish fishery until I explained what was going on, at which point they put the decline in it's proper perspective. This is an indication of what can go wrong when you accept data at face value. I'm afraid that happens all too often. Stock assessments – a necessary evil National Fisherman - 08/07/07 Last month I attended four days of a stock assessment meeting at the NMFS’ Northeast Fisheries Science Center in Woods Hole on Cape Cod. I was doing this for the Monkfish Defense Fund (the MDF), an industry group I’ve been affiliated with since its beginnings almost a decade ago. Asked about it later, I described the four days I was there as the longest two weeks I’d ever slogged thru. In other words, it wasn’t all that enjoyable. But it was informative. In fact, it was tremendously informative (and for those science types reading this, you can stop cringing, because I mean that in a good sense). I’m not an assessment scientist, not even close. I was never big on statistics, even back in college. Needless to say, much of what went on at Woods Hole was at least a wee bit beyond me. This could be why I found the experience somewhat painful in a long and drawn-out way. Think “four day root canal.” But was it worth being there? You betcha! First off, the monkfish fishery has been characterized as “data poor,” indicating, I guess, that extraordinary mathematical/statistical efforts were needed to upgrade the assessment (for an overview of the fishery and its management from my perspective, see “Is this any way to run a business” at http://www.fishnet-usa.com/run_a_business.html). The assessment panel members, both NMFS and “independent” scientists, were there to consider all of the information available on the fishery, to assess its current condition and to make recommendations relative to its future management. They all appeared to be taking the job very seriously and were intent on doing it as well as possible. If there was a piece of relevant data available on the monkfish stocks or the monkfish fishery, it was considered. Much of the meeting was devoted to fine tuning a computer model that was developed specifically for the monkfish fishery. The MDF had a scientist there as well, someone who understands all of the technical mumbo jumbo that is so far beyond me. Both his input and mine were sought and considered by the panel. There are subtle, and not so subtle, nuances involved in utilizing data that might not be evident to scientists, no matter how expert they are, from outside the fishery. Because of this, our participation was critical. On the downside, the panel throughout the meeting was subject to what seemed to me to be inordinate attempts by several members of the Science Center staff to influence the outcome of the deliberations. It felt like they were attempting to “protect” the existing management program – and NMFS’ role in its creation and implementation. Interestingly enough, to support some of their arguments they used information that would have undoubtedly been labeled as “anecdotal” and disregarded had it come from fishermen. What’s the final impact on the monkfish fishery going to be? At this point, we don’t know. But we do know that an inadequate method of estimating critical stock parameters was addressed and, we assume, will be improved upon. What’s the take-home message for the industry? When it comes to stock assessments of fisheries you are in, be there. Be there in person, if you’re able. Or have someone there for you. But make sure that he or she knows the fishery, and knows how it interacts with other fisheries, because what might appear to be changes related to the health of the stocks could be due to a totally unrelated factor (the decline in monkfish bycatch in the sea scallop fishery was one that came up in Woods Hole). But if you aren’t an assessment scientist, or if you doubt that you will understand everything that will be going on at the assessment, also have someone there who does. To as large an extent as possible, the involved industry reps should be there as a part of the process, but getting to that point won’t be easy. This is going to be expensive, but do you have any choice? Do you want to be saddled with an overly restrictive management regime because a decline in landings that was due to a fall in the strength of the yen was interpreted as a stock decline because no one was there to point out what was really going on? NMFS could help by making a fisherman – or someone else recognized by the industry as being well informed about the particular fishery – an official part of each panel. And pay his or her expenses, as well.
  11. Charlie - C'mon! Considering everything that it takes to do a full blown assessment, what is the chance of any individuals or organizations undertaking one on their own. (Part of) the job of government in fisheries management is to do assessments. Part of the job of us - or some of us - non-government individuals/organizations is to question those assessments when we aren't in agreement with them. And as long as those assessments are based on "the best available" rather than on "adequate to the task" science, I suspect and hope that they will be questioned. The assessment deck is stacked effectively stacked to favor the government perspective. The assessment panel members are chosen and paid by the government, few (recreational, party/charter or commercial) fishing groups can afford to have paid/qualified representatives attend, and dealing with the assessment panel can sometimes feel like dealing with an inquisition. One of the biggest problems in fisheries management today, as I see it, is the forcing (by a small group of corporate funded ENGOs) of the federal system to completely depend on a small group of not necessarily unbiased scientists and often inadequate science. This, particularly when coupled with the so-called precautionary principle (so called because it's precautionary for only the resource, not for the resource users), injects biases into the system that are almost impossible for any of us that don't have multi-billion dollar sugar daddies and mommies to support our efforts. We used to have knowledgeable and concerned Council members acting as a counter-balance to the "company line," and Charlie, you were one of them). Today all we have are Councils that have been turned into rubber stampers of that line.
  12. Cpalm - I've never claimed - or implied - that I am unbiased. I've worked for various companies and organizations in the commercial fishing industry for 25 years or so, primarily in NJ. That's all out in the open, I've never made any attempt to disguise or even low-level it. FishNet is paid for by half a dozen or so (it varies) commercial fishing docks/businesses, again primarily New Jersey. If I left you, or any other readers here, with the impression that I'm some kind of independent expert, I apologize. That's not been my intent here or elsewhere. Actually, I doubt that there is any such thing as an "independent expert" but that's a whole other issue. We've all got interests, whether they are financial or not. As I've written somewhere up above, I document - or try to document - all the sources I use. As in the quote I repeated above about summer flounder extending their range (though it seems as if their northern extension might be balanced by a southern contraction. I think croakers are doing the same thing but I haven't taken a look at the data on them for a while). To a large extent what I write is not what I "think" but what I get from others' research, analyses, etc. I sift through an awful lot of stuff and I try to put together information from disparate source (that's the stuff that I'm really careful about documenting) that applies to current situations - including summer flounder. A lot of people read what I write - or I give a lot of people the opportunity to read it. When I screw up on the technical stuff I hope that people make me aware of it. If it's a major screw-up I'll "fix it" by a follow-up correction. And I try to impress readers that I'm not particularly interested in kudos ( 'cause I can't do much with them other than saying "thanks") but very interested in criticizing/critiquing, because that's useful. Finally - though perhaps not - I've found that some people react as much or more to who I work for as they do to what I write. That's unfortunate but I'm afraid that to a large extent that's human nature and I take it in stride, because I doubt there much I can do to change it. By the way, considering that I've spent a not inconsiderable amount of time replying to you, who are you vis a vis where does your money come from and what is your interest in fishing? Finally - though perhaps not - I've found that some people react as much or more to who I work for as they do to what I write. That's unfortunate but I'm afraid that to a large extent that's human nature and I take it in stride, because I doubt there much I can do to change it.
  13. Cpalms - you obviously missed it the first time so hear it is again: "According to the Mid-Atlantic Council's Summer Flounder Fishery Performance Report for 2013 "summer flounder biomass appears to be shifting increasingly to the northeast, which is not being picked up by the surveys, in part due to the elimination of the winter survey. The winter commercial fishery has observed a large shift in biomass of fish to the east and to deeper and colder waters, which is not being reflected in the Science Center surveys. These shifts in biomass could reflect a potential range expansion, given that the fishery in the south is still robust." https://static1.squa...09_10_final.pdf." You appear to be so involved with your vituperation that you aren't doing much of a job reading-comprehension wise. I guess that'll help you maintain your misconceptions intact but there's a whole real world of science out there. It appears that those flat, slimey things that you are so intent on protecting from commercial despoilers aren't there because they've left the 'hood for more hospitable temperatures (get ready 'cause there's going to be a lot more of that going on, but you can blame that on commercial fishermen as well - that really won't matter either, I don't think).
  14. I don't think that I suggested - or even hinted - that the summer flounder quota should be increased, or decreased, or kept constant. I wrote about how it was being managed, and, as I usually do, left readers to decide what to do with what I wrote. As we see here, some people give it credence and some don't. Oh well.... Ref the surveys, "the alternative is, what, exactly?" The alternative is cooperative surveys, letting the Bigelow do something else and using real fishing boats and real fishermen, with scientists and technicians on-board to do the surveying. Seriously cheaper and more effective. (see http://www.southcoasttoday.com/news/20160803/sea-change-noaa-to-shift-fish-surveys-to-commercial-boats). We kept the monkfish fishery alive ten or so years ago, when it was to be closed by NOAA/NMFS by using two commercial boats/crews, with (not just NOAA/NMFS) scientists aboard, that found monkfish when the Albatross couldn't. According to the Mid-Atlantic Council's Summer Flounder Fishery Performance Report for 2013 "summer flounder biomass appears to be shifting increasingly to the northeast, which is not being picked up by the surveys, in part due to the elimination of the winter survey. The winter commercial fishery has observed a large shift in biomass of fish to the east and to deeper and colder waters, which is not being reflected in the Science Center surveys. These shifts in biomass could reflect a potential range expansion, given that the fishery in the south is still robust." https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/5231d22ee4b00af50f359b9b/1378996782947/SFSCBSB_FPRs+2013_09_10_final.pdf. Again, take that for what it's worth. I can't really comment on whether the results of surveys using inappropriate gear are valid as long as the the inappropriate gear is used consistently. Again, I'll leave that up to the readers to decide. Finally, as far as "abusive commercial fishing" is concerned, the MAFMC Summer Flounder Fishery Information Document from June, 2016 reports that in 2007 commercial landings were 103% of the quota, in 2008 were 99%, in 2009 and 2010 were 102%, in 2011 were 95%, in 2012 were 102%, in 2013 were 109% in 2014 were 105% and in 2015 were 96%. I can't see anything "abusive" about that, but again, it's up to the readers to decide. (Table 1 at https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/576c34d229687f1fd273ed98/1466709205547/Fluke+AP+FPR+Info+Doc+2016.pdf.
  15. Charlie/others - I wrote a piece on summer flounder management a couple of months back and based on the research I did it seems to me that perhaps your faith in the science behind the assessment might be misplaced slightly. The FishNet article is at http://www.fishnet-usa.com/SummerFlounder_AnyWorse.pdf. It seems that summer flounder science has been burdened with complete reversals, amazing "flexibility" on the part of the scientists, and a whole bunch of perhaps questionable judgments. I found most dramatic the complete flip-flop between 2010 and 2016. That's hardly the kind of performance that instills a lot of faith in the science (or the scientists). I tried to reference all of the outside information that I used. Follow the links and you'll get to the sources. I hope this background information is useful to anyone interested in looking at summer flounder management in any kind of historical - or analytical - context. One minor point - the NOAA/NMFS bottom trawl surveys, which extend back 40 some years are considered to be the "gold standard" for such surveys. The argument is that while the nets/liners/gear employed aren't particularly efficient at catching all of the species sampled - including bottom hugging species like summer flounder - there is a solid relationship between the poundage of each species caught in each survey and the total biomass of that species. That's something that I'm not completely comfortable with because it's assuming that that the net's inefficiency is a constant. Just like natural mortality, which I also touch on.